Font Size: 
Censure Urged for Attorney Whose Paralegal Acted as Lawyer in Court
New Jersey Law Journal
December 29, 2008
A lawyer who sent his paralegal to a court hearing where she advocated for a client should be censured, the Disciplinary Review Board said in an opinion released Tuesday.
The sanction was one step up from the reprimand that the District VIII Ethics Committee recommended for Neal Pomper of Highland Park, N.J.
Both the committee and the DRB determined that Pomper breached Rules of Professional Conduct 5.5(a)(2), assisting the unauthorized practice of law, and 8.4(a), violating ethics rules, inducing someone else to do so or violating them through someone else's actions.
According to the opinion, Pomper sent his paralegal/secretary Larissa Sufaru to a hearing in Somerset County Family Part on May 5, 2006, with Bruce Finney, whom Pomper represented in a child support matter. At the hearing, Sufaru identified herself as a lawyer, entered an appearance on the record, allowed herself to be addressed as "counselor" without objecting and advocated for Finney on the support issue.
The DRB opinion did not explain how it became known that Sufaru was not an attorney. But the hearing officer subsequently reported Sufaru to the Supreme Court Committee on the Unauthorized Practice of Law. Sufaru entered into an agreement with the committee, in which she acknowledged she did not correct the hearing officer's misunderstanding or ask for an adjournment. The UPL committee referred the matter to the district ethics committee.
There was some dispute about the type of hearing to which Pomper thought he was dispatching Sufaru. Pomper claimed Finney was awaiting the result of a blood test to determine paternity and he thought the hearing would address only that issue and not child support. Finney had asked the court to put off the support hearing until paternity was resolved. The notice for a "hearing after blood test" stated, "You may bring an attorney with you, although an attorney is not required."
Even if there was confusion, nonlawyers are also not allowed to represent clients at paternity hearings and Pomper admitted he did not handle paternity matters, the DRB pointed out.
Pomper testified he had "severely admonished" Sufaru for going ahead with the support hearing and had "taken steps" to prevent a recurrence. He also refunded Finney's $750 retainer.
The DRB reviewed the evidence de novo and agreed with the district committee that Pomper acted unethically by violating RPC 5.5(a)(2), which was a per se violation of 8.4(a).
But the DRB found a reprimand was not sufficient and looked at the discipline meted out to other lawyers for similar misconduct, including:
A reprimand for knowingly assisting the lawyer's disbarred father in presenting himself as lawyer in litigation;
A reprimand for dividing legal fees with a paralegal who was also allowed to advise clients on the merits of claims and formulate settlement offers;
A three-month suspension for allowing a nonlawyer to prepare and sign pleadings in the lawyer's name and be designated as Esq. on the lawyer's business account;
A three-month suspension for permitting the bookkeeper to use the lawyer's signature stamp on trust account checks and the office manager/paralegal to interview clients, execute retainers in the lawyer's name, prepare and execute pleadings and releases, attend depositions and appear in municipal court and for compensating the office manager based on his work as a lawyer.
A consented six-month suspension for agreeing with a suspended lawyer to help him keep representing clients by appearing as the attorney of record and handling court appearances; and
A one-year suspension for an arrangement with a Texas corporation that sold living trusts to senior citizens in which the lawyer did not tell the clients he was being paid by the company.
Pomper did not merit a suspension because there was no evidence he designated Sufaru as an attorney on his business account, entered into a partnership with her or split fees with her, said the DRB. In addition, he admitted his wrongdoing, gave back the retainer and took corrective action.
Though Pomper, admitted to the New Jersey bar in 1982, had an ethics history, it did not weigh heavily against him because one incident was 20 years old and the other was minor.
He received a private reprimand in 1986 for representing both buyer and seller in a real estate deal and, after a dispute arose, continuing to represent the seller. In 2004, he was admonished for failing to prepare a written fee agreement in a matrimonial case and agreeing to split his fee with another lawyer, without notifying the client.
The DRB voted 8-0 for censure. Reginald Stanton, a former Morris County assignment judge, did not participate.
Pomper, who was pro se throughout the case, did not return a reporter's call.
Marc Bressler, of Bressler Duyk in Edison, N.J., who represented the District Ethics Committee before the DRB, was vacationing out of the country and could not be reached for comment.
The case is In the Matter of Neal M. Pomper, Docket No. DRB 08-237.
